Raymond v MPIC, 2017 MBCA 32

Citation: Raymond v MPIC, 2017 MBCA 32 Date: 20170308 Docket: AI16-30-08603 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice William J. Burnett Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella Madam Justice Janice L. leMaistre BETWEEN: MARC WAYNE RAYMOND ) M. W. Raymond ) on his own behalf (Plaintiff) Appellant ) ) T. M. Brown and- and - ) A. G. Miles ) for the RespondentTHE MANITOBA PUBLIC INSURANCE ) CORPORATION ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: (Defendant) Respondent ) March 8, 2017 On appeal from 2016 MBQB 117 BURNETT JA (for the Court): [1] The plaintiff appeals the decision of a motion judge (the motion judge) who granted

summary judgment dismissinghis claim. [2] The facts are set out in the motion judge’s decision and are not in dispute. Briefly stated, the plaintiff was the chiefexecutive officer of a company that operated in British Columbia. Because he had to travel to Vancouver on a regular basis, he drove amotor vehicle (the motor vehicle) to Vancouver in May 1992, and he left the motor vehicle in Vancouver to be used when he was therefor business.

It was agreed that when the plaintiff travelled to Vancouver, he never used the motor vehicle for more than sevenconsecutive days. [3] Although the motor vehicle remained in British Columbia for more than four years, it was never registered or insuredby the plaintiff in that province. The motor vehicle remained registered in Manitoba and was insured with the defendant. [4] On October 13, 1996, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The driver of the other vehicle sued, anda consent judgment was entered on his behalf in the amount of $100,000. [5] The defendant denied coverage on the basis of

section 58 of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act, CCSMc P215 (the MPIC Act). The motion judge agreed that the defendant was entitled to deny coverage on that basis given the plaintiff’sfailure to comply with section 3(1) and section 20(1) of the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1979, c 288, as it stood between1992-1996 (the MV Act). [6] While the plaintiff raises a number of grounds of appeal, the substantive issue is whether the motion judge correctlyinterpreted section 20(1) of the MV Act. As that issue involves a question of statutory

interpretation based on undisputed facts, the appealraises a question of law reviewable on a correctness standard. [7] We are satisfied that the motion judge correctly interpreted section 20(1) of the MV Act. As this Court has previouslystated, the intent of that

section is clear (see Smith v Manitoba Public Insurance Corp (1997), (MB CA), 115 ManR(2d) 81 at para 12). In the present circumstances, the plaintiff was required to register and license the motor vehicle within 30 days fromthe date he began to operate the motor vehicle on a highway in British Columbia.

[ 8 ] In our view, the motion judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of the defendant’s expert, and he did not err when he found that:

a) the plaintiff failed to comply with sections 3(1) and 20(1) of the MV Act ;

b) the plaintiff’s owner’s certificate was deemed to have been revoked pursuant to

section 58 of the MPIC Act ;

c) the defendant was entitled to rely upon

section 58 to deny coverage to the plaintiff ( see Smith at para 14 ); and

d) the plaintiff had failed to raise a genuine issue for trial with a real chance of success. [ 9 ] The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. JA JA JA